Shooting in Connecticut

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Investigators do with hold important information for a good reason. To compile the truth.

I will say it again. The whole AW crusade upsets me cause it ignores the true problem and wastes resources on something that will not cure the problem with our violent society. I don't have the answers but am hopefull that voice of reason will prevail.

[GregWeld]

Here's something you all might find "interesting":


Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.


In Switzerland, the police registered a total of 527,897 criminal offenses in 2010, including 53 killings and 187 attempted murders.

[nicks67ca]

The AW ban is just a feel good movement and doesn't help the responsible, mentally stable, and lawful gun owners (myself included). One thing I saw is that there are some serious federal funding shortfalls in linking the known mentally ill and criminals.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan...hecks-20130113

one key thing was there was $125m authorized but only $5m appropriated for a more comprehensive database.

Why are we looking for new measures even though we can't pay for the ones we have?

I am still on the fence on hi cap mags. I own many hi cap mags for my xm but i find myself leaning towards my 1911 and 12ga 870 in a home defensive situation. In the Newtown case if only 10rd were available it may have required more reloads and more time for the police to respond. I do see some value in some safety measures around owning hi cap mags.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Originally Posted by nicks67ca

The AW ban is just a feel good movement and doesn't help the responsible, mentally stable, and lawful gun owners (myself included). One thing I saw is that there are some serious federal funding shortfalls in linking the known mentally ill and criminals.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan...hecks-20130113

one key thing was there was $125m authorized but only $5m appropriated for a more comprehensive database.

Why are we looking for new measures even though we can't pay for the ones we have?

I am still on the fence on hi cap mags. I own many hi cap mags for my xm but i find myself leaning towards my 1911 and 12ga 870 in a home defensive situation. In the Newtown case if only 10rd were available it may have required more reloads and more time for the police to respond. I do see some value in some safety measures around owning hi cap mags.

Yes, it will turn into a giant money pit.

I hear the idea on hi cap magazines alot. If you look at the statement it totally disreguards the root problem. Here is what that says. " by not having a high capacity magazine and only limited to 10 rounds it give potential victims time to hide and run while the gunman is reloading ". But how about not having the gunman there in the first place. So 10 dead is better than 30? Am I the only one that sees the wrong in the statement the media shoves in our faces? Just wondering.

High caps are nice. I didn't buy or own my firearms for home protection. Im a collector and target shooter. Its nice not to reload so often at the range.

[Sieg]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

In Switzerland, the police registered a total of 527,897 criminal offenses in 2010, including 53 killings and 187 attempted murders.

Facebook post:

There were more murders in Chicago in 2012 than all Allied losses in Afghanistan last year. There were 405 Coalition deaths in Afghanistan in 2012.
310 of those 405 deaths were Americans. Meanwhile, in the Gun Free liberal Nirvana of Barry Obama’s Chicago, there were 532 homicides in 2012. Tell me again how well gun control works?

[Spiffav8]

Originally Posted by nicks67ca

The AW ban is just a feel good movement and doesn't help the responsible, mentally stable, and lawful gun owners (myself included). One thing I saw is that there are some serious federal funding shortfalls in linking the known mentally ill and criminals.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan...hecks-20130113

one key thing was there was $125m authorized but only $5m appropriated for a more comprehensive database.

Why are we looking for new measures even though we can't pay for the ones we have?

I am still on the fence on hi cap mags. I own many hi cap mags for my xm but i find myself leaning towards my 1911 and 12ga 870 in a home defensive situation. In the Newtown case if only 10rd were available it may have required more reloads and more time for the police to respond. I do see some value in some safety measures around owning hi cap mags.

There are numerous 'tools' for every job. Some being a little better suited for the task at hand than others. A gun is simply a tool and when you break it down, some are better than others. A high capacity magazine is simply a part or feature of that specific gun. As I stated before, it really doesn't take any time to change out a magazine. I can reload my 1911 (8 rounds) faster than I can my SIG P226 and I'm a better shot with my SIG. I try to look at things like this from 'the other side'. Let's say someone used a 1911 to commit a crime like a school shooting. The larger caliber would be more effective. Thinner magazines would mean less bulk and one could move and fire more effectively, just to point out a few. My point is, that it's not the tool, it's how it's used. Banning any type of weapon or magazine capacity isn't the answer. Education on responsible gun ownership and more action against crime, while helping mentally unstable people (who are not criminals) is the key.

There is NO justification for taking anything away from law abiding people. The actions by a great number of our elected officials, who are using the recent shootings to stir an emotional response, rather than make an informed and rational decision, that would be a positive, is shameful. Good people are being treated as criminals and having their rights stripped away. IF they are allowed to take your 2nd amendment rights, what's to say or stop them from taking more? It doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on. What matters is taking the right/smart actions to protect our rights. The current knee jerking does not address the root cause of violent crime in the US.

[nicks67ca]

Originally Posted by Vince@MSperfab

Yes, it will turn into a giant money pit.

I hear the idea on hi cap magazines alot. If you look at the statement it totally disreguards the root problem. Here is what that says. " by not having a high capacity magazine and only limited to 10 rounds it give potential victims time to hide and run while the gunman is reloading ". But how about not having the gunman there in the first place. So 10 dead is better than 30? Am I the only one that sees the wrong in the statement the media shoves in our faces? Just wondering.

High caps are nice. I didn't buy or own my firearms for home protection. Im a collector and target shooter. Its nice not to reload so often at the range.

Great point rationalizing a lower number is not the answer. I am also a collector and target shooter mostly.

[nicks67ca]

Originally Posted by Spiffav8

There is NO justification for taking anything away from law abiding people. The actions by a great number of our elected officials, who are using the recent shootings to stir an emotional response, rather than make an informed and rational decision, that would be a positive, is shameful. Good people are being treated as criminals and having their rights stripped away. IF they are allowed to take your 2nd amendment rights, what's to say or stop them from taking more? It doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on. What matters is taking the right/smart actions to protect our rights. The current knee jerking does not address the root cause of violent crime in the US.

I didn't say taking away I think safety measures around owning is important. I agree taking away doesn't solve the core issue. It's also a slippery slope for other rights. While its a shame that law abiding citizens need to go through a longer process for legal ownership that is the current environment we are in. If registration at the time of purchase was done WITH a comprehensive background check system like mental illness for the purchaser and in the household, and better criminal record links it might be a step worth considering. I for one never have an issue waiting the 30 minutes to fill out the proper paper work when I purchase.

This is no a one size fits all answer. There needs to be equal effort in mental health, and following through on the safeguards already in place.

[realcoray]

Originally Posted by nicks67ca

I didn't say taking away I think safety measures around owning is important. I agree taking away doesn't solve the core issue. It's also a slippery slope for other rights. While its a shame that law abiding citizens need to go through a longer process for legal ownership that is the current environment we are in. If registration at the time of purchase was done WITH a comprehensive background check system like mental illness for the purchaser and in the household, and better criminal record links it might be a step worth considering. I for one never have an issue waiting the 30 minutes to fill out the proper paper work when I purchase.

This is no a one size fits all answer. There needs to be equal effort in mental health, and following through on the safeguards already in place.

The question I have is, how is verifying in all transactions that the buyer can legally own the weapon, infringing on your rights?

What if to purchase a gun, from ANY source, you needed a permit. The permit process would be equivilent to the current process, with a waiting period and background searches. The permit would be valid for say 6 months.

With a permit, you could purchase any weapon with no wait but it would either have to be overseen by law enforcement, or you could certainly create a situation where licensed sellers could handle this.

The same would apply to private sales, you'd have to perform the transaction through a seller or your sherrif.

Granted, this sort of stuff would probably mean higher fees, but it has benefits for gun purchasers, and would help close the giant loophole where criminals have plenty of ways to get guns.

Essentially, the more we are able to be sure that guns are getting into the hands of responsible people, the less control you need on the guns themselves. If it's just willy nilly which it basically is right now, then I'd rather not have assault rifles be everywhere, but if only stand up people have them, then I could care less.

[camcojb]

Originally Posted by realcoray

The question I have is, how is verifying in all transactions that the buyer can legally own the weapon, infringing on your rights?

What if to purchase a gun, from ANY source, you needed a permit. The permit process would be equivilent to the current process, with a waiting period and background searches. The permit would be valid for say 6 months.

With a permit, you could purchase any weapon with no wait but it would either have to be overseen by law enforcement, or you could certainly create a situation where licensed sellers could handle this.

The same would apply to private sales, you'd have to perform the transaction through a seller or your sherrif.

Granted, this sort of stuff would probably mean higher fees, but it has benefits for gun purchasers, and would help close the giant loophole where criminals have plenty of ways to get guns.

Essentially, the more we are able to be sure that guns are getting into the hands of responsible people, the less control you need on the guns themselves. If it's just willy nilly which it basically is right now, then I'd rather not have assault rifles be everywhere, but if only stand up people have them, then I could care less.

How will this slow down criminals? We have laws against drugs you know, and they're more readily available than ever, haven't even made a dent in them. I am not against background checks, I think they need to be continued. I just don't think that's going to prevent what just happened. The previous assault weapon ban would not have changed anything in this instance.